Yeah I read later that the Marines wanted a hard hitting, troop carried quick attack weapon with a high rate of fire that could take out MG positions and bunkers quickly. The standard Browning M1919 and the B.A.R both had to slow rates of fire for what the Marines wanted so they came up with the Stinger. They were AN-M2 .30 cals out of SBD Dauntless Dive Bombers and converted with an M1 Garand stock and a B.A.R bipod. 5 were sent to one Platoon and the other was sent to another Platoon which got in the hands of Tony Stein. It was a very effective weapon and the Marines loved it.He took it off a combat aircraft, and aircraft MGs tend to have souped-up rates of fire. :IS2:
Imagine it in-game though--the American MG42! Even as a hero weapon it would sure put the Japanese at a disadvantage, especially if all their hero has is a Type 100 smg with the puny 8mm round
The Imperial Army is just reeallly outclassed when it comes to weapons...
There should be some consideration for the M5 Reising (sp?) for the marines. It very briefly appeared in MoH Pacific Assault and, all things considered, it was very interesting simply for the fact that I had never heard of it before.
The Johnson automatic rifle too.
There WAS consideration - we considered and rejected both. I have to say none of us thought, "It was in MOHPA therefore we MUST have it."
No way we are going to squander our limited manpower on weps that would only be used on one map. Sorry, but no.
Well the Springfield has to be in if we are to do USMC on Guadalcanal and it is not much of a task to add the scope for later maps so the Springfield is prolly quite a safe bet, I would say.Does this apply to the M1903 Springfield (unscoped) or no? I can't wait to play this expansion. It's about time the Pacific was done right.
Oh, hmm....Type 11 LMG, similarly. DH showed us that deployable weapons requiring crew co-operation, rarely have much of an impact on the battlefield.
Most videos I have seen have one guy continuously feeding clips into the hopper whilst the gunner keeps it aimed. An MG that could have reloads every 5 shots seems rather high maintenance. The Japanese ditched this weapon as soon as they could because of reliability problems (twigs, dirt etc. getting into the hopper alongside the bullets)Oh, hmm....
Would the Type 11 require crew co-operation beyond what the MG-34 and DP-28 requires? I've obviously never used any of those, but it seems to me that the Type 11 could be a 1-man job, although I do understand that rendering the model and reload animation for such a strange weapon may be rather unwarranted.
I think that this weapons should appear at some point in the future though (post-release), if I remember correctly it wasn't the rarest weapon on the battlefield.
What about the M1897/M12 Trench Gun and the M2 Flamethrower? Both were pretty big players in the Pacific War.Well the Springfield has to be in if we are to do USMC on Guadalcanal and it is not much of a task to add the scope for later maps so the Springfield is prolly quite a safe bet, I would say.
You'd be surprised. You may think you're at long range in a lot of RO/ MN and DH maps, but you're generally not. it's quite rare to be shooting at somebody beyond 100 meters. Buckshot would be less effective, but not entirely useless at 100 meters. The balls would still injure or kill you if they hit you, making it a fairly good suppression weapon for heavy-brush maps.I suppose the M1A1 would almost be a certainty since it's nearly synonymous with the US army and depending the map I'd guess the trench guns could be in but of course on the larger, more open maps they'd be nearly useless.